Chris101
summicronia
Actually I saw this last year for the first time. A young woman at the Flagstaff Music Festival was walking around with a Rolleiflex attached to her belt.. She was snapping away with a largish Canon DSLR. The Rollei looked like it was firmly attached to her outfit, and could not be used as a camera.
I think I got a shot of her - I'll look for it tonight.
rogerzilla
Well-known
Digital is far superior in low light situations even if you don't have high ISO, because it laughs in the face of reciprocity failure. But you can't get real b/w, nor can you get an entirely different look just by trying a new film. And digital noise is far nastier than grain, because it doesn't line up with the image in the way that film grain does.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Digital may 'laugh in the face of reciprocity failure" until one needs to actually do a very long exposure, then a couple hundred dollar SLR with a roll of provia and a filter will be able to do things that no comparable (in price) digital could. Some image sensors can actually have their pixel failure rate increased by doing long exposures. Also, as you said digital noise usually blows when compared to grain of the same severity.
Now that digital SLRs can have decent results at 25000 though there ARE lots of situations where they CAN do things that film cameras never will. For now I'll still he happy with microphen and fast lenses though.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Dwayneb9584
Well-known
Now that's Organic!
I feel much the same way. I spent a small fortune on my first and only DSLR back around 2004 (Canon 1D MkII). I have used a few before then including the Canon D30 (?), the 10D, and the original 1D. I embraced Digital pretty heavily and learned how to shoot with those cameras, edit in Photoshop, and make very nice Epson prints. Shortly before that I bought a used 4x5 filed camera and an old Kodak lens. I dabbled with that a little, but the newness of digital still had me seduced and that's what I mainly concentrated on.
After a while, this started to be less of a challenge and I found myself wanting to go back to shooting film. I have several film cameras, but wanted a rangefinder. I bought a couple of used Canonnets on Ebay. Then I purchased a couple of Diana cameras, and a modified Holga, then some pinhole cameras. Then 2 years ago I found a great deal on an M6 on Ebay, and then purchased a used Summicron 50 at KEH.
A friend of mine (my retired photo professor) gave me a freezer full of film recently, as well as two top notch enlargers - a Bessler that does 4x5, and a Leica Focomat with auto focus as well as enough paper and chemistry to last me quite a while (even Ilfochrome chemicals and paper).
So needless to say I have a lot of film, plenty of film cameras, some nice darkroom equipment and no excuses.
My goal is to get this set up in the new year and make some traditional darkroom prints. I used to do this in college and it was a pure joy for me.
Some snaps of my freezer - incidentally shot with a digital P&S...
Finnegan
Newbie
I'm 29 and got into photography about a year ago. I use both film and digital.
2 reasons why I like film: It limits me and I look/work harder resulting in learning faster. Also no delete function. You have to live with your failures.
2nd reason, and thats not a very important one. The looks. It's organic and imperfect (35mm) and I grew up with that look.
I work in audio engineering and it's the same digital vs. analog thing there. In music some people still record on magnetic tape and will still do so in 50 years. For much of the same reasons. It's more organic, imperfect and people are used to that sound.
2 reasons why I like film: It limits me and I look/work harder resulting in learning faster. Also no delete function. You have to live with your failures.
2nd reason, and thats not a very important one. The looks. It's organic and imperfect (35mm) and I grew up with that look.
I work in audio engineering and it's the same digital vs. analog thing there. In music some people still record on magnetic tape and will still do so in 50 years. For much of the same reasons. It's more organic, imperfect and people are used to that sound.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Finnegan -- very astute observation. There are parallels between audio and photography, as you mentioned. I own a couple albums (recorded in the 2000's) that use expensive Neumann microphones, but were recorded direct to 8-track analog tape. The artist & producer intentionally wanted that particular sound ... even if the eventual product was going to be mastered down to CD or squashed into an MP3.
Analog film + a decent scanner is a similar workflow. I do it all the time, and I love the results I get from film. Sure, film can be frustrating. Each film has its own 'personality', its own strengths and weaknesses. And maybe it's some kind of mis-placed nostalgia that makes me reach for my film camera far more often than my Canon dSLR. But I feel I have to work harder to get a good photo from a film camera ... the results are more satisfying to me.
Regarding the original thread ('young people turning to film') -- I don't have any hard figures, but anecdotal evidence seems to say it's definitely been a growing force in photography in the past while.
I was at a giant shopping mall in my city last month. In the giant shopping mall, there is a large 'hipster' store where all the cool kids shop. They carry things like Japanese import toys, fashionable T-shirts, coffee table art books, etc. Imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon a table loaded with Lomography products, Lomo-branded film, and Fuji Instax cameras.
I'm not saying that every teenager with a smartphone is rushing out to buy a rangefinder or anything like that -- but I think for the latest generation (Gen Y? Gen Z?) analog photography is quirky and retro and cool ... basically the same reasons why this 40-something father of two still salivates when he sees a clean Minolta Himatic 7 in an antique store window!
Analog film + a decent scanner is a similar workflow. I do it all the time, and I love the results I get from film. Sure, film can be frustrating. Each film has its own 'personality', its own strengths and weaknesses. And maybe it's some kind of mis-placed nostalgia that makes me reach for my film camera far more often than my Canon dSLR. But I feel I have to work harder to get a good photo from a film camera ... the results are more satisfying to me.
Regarding the original thread ('young people turning to film') -- I don't have any hard figures, but anecdotal evidence seems to say it's definitely been a growing force in photography in the past while.
I was at a giant shopping mall in my city last month. In the giant shopping mall, there is a large 'hipster' store where all the cool kids shop. They carry things like Japanese import toys, fashionable T-shirts, coffee table art books, etc. Imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon a table loaded with Lomography products, Lomo-branded film, and Fuji Instax cameras.
I'm not saying that every teenager with a smartphone is rushing out to buy a rangefinder or anything like that -- but I think for the latest generation (Gen Y? Gen Z?) analog photography is quirky and retro and cool ... basically the same reasons why this 40-something father of two still salivates when he sees a clean Minolta Himatic 7 in an antique store window!